On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Jim Morris wrote:
aslak hellesoy wrote:
I'm inviting you to provide some constructive feedback about how we
could improve it to make the transition easier for people like
yourself.
I'll give it a try, I'll port some of my stories to cucumber and see
how it
Sigh. Sorry to ask such a dumb question, but I've hit one of those
walls...
I'm testing a view which uses the params[] hash directly. (Aside: is
this bad form?)
How the heckers do I set up the params hash in my test?
I've tried calling
render 'some/view', { :first_param = true }
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:18 AM, Matt Wynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh. Sorry to ask such a dumb question, but I've hit one of those walls...
I'm testing a view which uses the params[] hash directly. (Aside: is this
bad form?)
How the heckers do I set up the params hash in my test?
I've
Hi David,
2008/8/18 David Chelimsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Those options don't make it to the runner, which reads the actual
command line (ARGV).
What I typically do is load up runner files that look like this:
# stories/accounting/stories.rb
with_steps_for :accounting do
run
I noticed that the examples on the rspec website for model code
http://rspec.info/documentation/rails/writing/models.html have no mocks or
stubs. However both the controller example and view example do have mocks
and stubs implemented. I was having some problems getting mocks to work in
my model
On Aug 19, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Kinney wrote:
I noticed that the examples on the rspec website for model code http://rspec.info/documentation/rails/writing/models.html
have no mocks or stubs. However both the controller example and
view example do have mocks and stubs implemented. I
It's also, for me, nice to isolate the code I'm testing using mocks.
So if I'm building a controller and I mock out the behaviour I will
expect it to call on the model layer, I know that any failing tests
must be due to bugs in the controller class, nowhere else.
Coming from using an
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Scott Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Ultimately, it's all about convenience and your comfort level. The reason
mocking is as popular as it is is simply because of slow test suites (google
Dan Manges and unitrecord, if you are curious).
Another reason why
Hi,
I am new to rspec and started implementing it on my project yesterday.
I have followed the instructions and installed rspec gem and rspec
plugin into my project. I created couple of sample stories and tried
running the specs using spec command which worked fine, but when I
started using
Hi David,
Most of my knowledge came from peepcode rspec screencast and the
following link.
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html
Here are the steps I have done to get going.
1) Installed rspec gem
2) Installed rspec plugin in my project
3) created a test_spec.rb
On Aug 19, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Satish Gunnu wrote:
Hi,
I am new to rspec and started implementing it on my project
yesterday.
I have followed the instructions and installed rspec gem and rspec
plugin into my project. I created couple of sample stories and tried
running the specs using spec
Yes I think that is what's happening in my case. is this how it is
supposed to work? or can we have rspec ignore the step to look at
development environment. thanks so much for all your help.
iirc, it looks at the development environment to prepare the db
schema, but still runs the specs in
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Linowes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
you'll notice that vendor/plugins/rspec-rails/rspec.rake contains the line
spec_prereq = File.exist?(File.join(RAILS_ROOT, 'config', 'database.yml'))
? db:test:prepare : :noop
which you could change or comment out
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Satish Gunnu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi David,
Most of my knowledge came from peepcode rspec screencast and the
following link.
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html
Here are the steps I have done to get going.
1) Installed rspec
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html
I sure wish someone would take that page down - it's caused me more than my
share of grief.
///ark
___
rspec-users mailing list
rspec-users@rubyforge.org
Awesome. Thanks guys. Appreciate your help.
Mark Wilden wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Linowes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
you'll notice that vendor/plugins/rspec-rails/rspec.rake contains the line
spec_prereq = File.exist?(File.join(RAILS_ROOT, 'config', 'database.yml'))
Done
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Mark Wilden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://rspec.rubyforge.org/documentation/rails/install.html
I sure wish someone would take that page down - it's caused me more than my
share of grief.
///ark
___
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Jonathan Linowes wrote:
On Aug 19, 2008, at 4:32 PM, Satish Gunnu wrote:
Yes I think that is what's happening in my case. is this how it is
supposed to work? or can we have rspec ignore the step to look at
development environment. thanks so much for all your
Hello.
I've found one bug when failing before :all block doesn't move html report's
progress bar correctly.
You can test it out easily by doing something like this:
describe bad bad bad do
before :all do
true.should be_false
end
it empty do
end
end
Now run this spec with html formatter and
Maybe you shouldn't be placing spectations in a before or after filter, it
doesn't make much sense.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 6:53 PM, juuuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I've found one bug when failing before :all block doesn't move html
report's
progress bar correctly.
You can test
It makes sense to me. Let's say that you want to initialize object in your
before :all, but this fails.
For example, in my case I'm using RSpec for automated web testing with Watir
and I'm logging into web application from before :all and if this fails then
it's logical that there's no point to
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Maurício Linhares
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you shouldn't be placing spectations in a before or after filter, it
doesn't make much sense.
I disagree. They can be useful for verifying assumptions about
fixture data. At any rate, a bug's a bug.
juuser: can
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Dan North [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are also some success stories around using rspec story runner + jruby
as a functional testing layer for Java apps. Someone blogged about it a
while ago but I forget who.
Hopefully someone here can help me figure out why the ERB:
% form_for(@fund, :url = {:host = PRIVATE_HOST}, :html = {:class
= 'fund', :multipart = true}) do |f| %
raises an error in my specs:
No route matches {:action=index}
but works fine in my app and generates the following, desired
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Zach Dennis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I might end up with a separate object which managed making the wget
system call, and then I've have an integration-style test which
ensured it correctly downloaded a given passed in URL.
+1
What do you think is the best thing to do?
I would prefer to merge it into RSpec whenever it's ready. One of the
strong points about RSpec is that it's a complete BDD toolkit: example
framework for developer testing, feature runner for customer test, and
the mock objects framework. People can
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM, RSL ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hopefully someone here can help me figure out why the ERB:
% form_for(@fund, :url = {:host = PRIVATE_HOST}, :html = {:class
= 'fund', :multipart = true}) do |f| %
raises an error in my specs:
No route matches
I don't even know how it'd be possible (through Selenium?), but I want it.
I want to see if my stupid CSS hacks break. I want to say:
describe #nav-column do
body = something(#body-column)
it should line up at the top do
dom[:top].should_be == body.dom[:top]
end
it should always
Aslak Hellesøy wrote:
Right now the scope of Before/After is global - i.e. all Before and
After blocks will run before and after each scenario. I have
deliberately postponed adding scoping of this until I better understand
how people want to define this scoping.
Here is one ideas:
class
29 matches
Mail list logo
